Search form

Search

Content Blocking

Governments around the world block access to online content for a variety of reasons: to shield children from obscene content, to prevent access to copyright-infringing material or confusingly named domains, or to protect national security. From democratic nations such as India, the United Kingdom, and South Korea to states with authoritarian governments, states are implementing extensive filtering regimes with varying degrees of transparency and consistency.

EFF believes that the blocking and filtering by nation states of the global Internet is a violation of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which grants everyone the right "to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." Since our founding in 1990, we have fought to preserve the capacity of the Internet to allow everyone to speak without hindrance, and for everyone to freely choose who they communicate with, no matter who—or where—they may be.

How Countries Block Content

There are various methods used to block content online. Government actors can block or tamper with domain names, filter and block specific keywords, block a particular IP address, or urge online content providers to remove content or search results. Often, governments rely upon commercial software to do the job for them. Products readily available on the market for use in homes, schools, and libraries have been used in several countries. Though the export and sale of these tools is generally legal, it often raises questions of human rights and corporate social responsibility. Some countries, such as China, use a combination of the aforementioned techniques, by pervasively blocking keywords, foreign websites, and urging companies such as Google to remove certain content. Others, such as Morocco and Egypt, take a minimalist approach to content blocking, by filtering a certain selection of URLs. The level of transparency in content blocking also differs from country to country. Some offer block pages that explain to users that a site is blocked (as well as, sometimes, why it is blocked) and/or means of challenging a specific site block, while others re-direct the user to an error page; before the fall of the Ben Ali regime, for example, Tunisia famously redirected users to an HTTP 404 error page.

Why Countries Block Content

Countries block online content for a variety of reasons, often based on national cultural norms or political considerations. India for example, uses the pretext of public safety to enact laws allowing certain websites to be blocked, while other countries, such as Qatar, primarily block websites for containing pornography or other content that they claim offends the sensibilities of their citizens. Russia blocks child pornography, as well as online content containing materials advocating drug abuse, suicide, or “extremism.” Still others block websites or domains under the pretense of preventing copyright or trademark infringement. An increasing number of governments also block websites belonging to their political opposition, human rights organizations, and independent media.

What EFF is Doing

Whenever possible, EFF engages with policymakers to ensure that the Internet remains an open platform for free expression. We also support the efforts of organizations like Tor to empower Internet users residing in censored countries to protect their identities, circumvent firewalls, and access blocked content. Content blocking occurs in both autocratic and democratic countries. EFF seeks to amplify the voices of local grassroots organizations opposing censorship all over the world, and educate our members about those groups’ concerns. We frequently join international campaigns against censorship, and provide updates on content blocking and other censorship incidents on the Deeplinks blog.

This weekend Apple took a dispiriting step in the policing of its Chinese mainland App store: the company removed several Virtual Private Network (VPN) applications that allowed users to circumvent the China’s extensive internet censorship apparatus. In effect, the company has once again aided the Chinese government in...

In recent months, social media platforms—under pressure from a number of governments—have adopted new policies and practices to remove content that promotes terrorism. As the Guardian reported, these policies are typically carried out by low-paid contractors (or, in the case of YouTube, volunteers) and with little to no transparency...

A country has the right to prevent the world’s Internet users from accessing information, Canada’s highest court ruled on Wednesday. In a decision that has troubling implications for free expression online, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a company’s effort to force Google to de-list entire domains and websites...

For governments interested in suppressing information online, the old methods of direct censorship are getting less and less effective. Over the past month, the Thai government has made escalating attempts to suppress critical information online. In the last week, faced with an embarrassing video of the Thai King, the...

UPDATE: Facebook's general counsel posted a response to Sen. Thune's letter on May 23, 2016. Allegations that Facebook’s “trending” news stories are not actually those that are most popular among users drew the attention of Sen. John Thune (R-SD), who sent a letter of inquiry to Facebook...